Posted on 02/27/2007 8:58:32 AM PST by pissant
Every 4 years, to garner the nomination for their party, GOPers swerve right, and Dems swerve left, to placate their respective bases, who tend more conservative/liberal than the population at large. Makes sense, since it is usually true believers most involved in the grassroots political process. This has repeated itself for many, many election cycles.
Those that blur the lines between republican and democrat, are treated with suspicion by their bases. It could be a single issue, for example Joe Lieberman on the war, or a host of issues, such as Arnold in California. Their resultant election to office, driven largely by independents and those in the opposite party showing admiration for one of the "enemy" siding with them might be good for moderation in government, but it leaves the party in that particular state in shambles (witness california). While that is not necessarily a national tragedy if the CT dems or the CA GOP is dysfunctional, when it comes to the presidency, it would be, and both parties recognize it. It is not unprecedented in this country that one of the major parties crumbles and disappears. The GOP was on its death bed by 1976 following Nixon's resignation, our shameful abandonment of Vietnam, and the moderate Ford taking office. The few conservatives in the party were no match for the majority dems in combination with the blue blood GOPers that had long ago given up on fighting the creeping socialism, had resigned themselves to co-existence with an aggressive USSR, and were generally anchorless and powerless. But something different was brewing in CA and his name was Reagan. Not only did he espouse the Goldwater platitudes of "government is the problem", he did something else alien to the moribund GOP. He courted those who saw the radical 1960s and 1970s changes in society as alarming and anti-american and anti-God. Not only did Reagan stand tall against the liberal social tide, he ridiculed it, sometimes with humor, sometimes in scathing terms. So much so that millions of Democrats saw this man, a republican, who embodied the good of American tradition and respect for the beliefs of our forefathers, both democrat and republican, and they switched parties. Think Bill Bennett, New Gingrich, etc. The social conservatives of the bible belt quickly realized that it was the republicans that stood for God, Country, family, not the party of their lineage. The GOP elites fought back and fought back hard, using many of the same terms to describe Reagan as the dems and the MSM would in 1980. Ford won the nomination by a whisker. But the table had been set. The rest is history.
The grand coalition that Reagan created, that led to a strictly conservative platform, that led to the collpase of the USSR, that led to a new generation of fiscal AND socially conservative leaders, is now teetering. GHWB was no Reagan, yet won on his coatails, only to lose "that vision thing". Yet the coalition held steady, and he would have been reelected had the stalking horse named Perot not waltzed in. 1994 saw a strong resurgence of the coalition due to Clinton's over reach, but it has been dwindling ever since. It has been dwindling not because of the party moving closer to Reaganism, but becasue it has moved farther away from it.
Bold ideas are in short supply. In 2004, Bush set out to fix SS forever and give citizens a stake in managing THEIR money, and the GOP leadership pulled the Rug out from under him. But they did support Bush's No Child Left Behind and prescription drug plan, and did not even bother to fight for the free market parts of those bills that Bush had wanted. Bush has consistently defied the UN and world opinion, much to the betterment of American sovereignty and national interest, yet it is mostly Bush and Cheney standing alone defending their policies while the GOP leadership let the dems and the media shape the debate.
There is no Newt Gingrich in the leadership of the congress. We had Frist and Hastert, nice guys and all, but feckless and afraid of what the Washington Post said about them. When it became fashionable to bash Rumsfeld, GOPers were making a b-line to the microphone to join the chorus. When the NY Times kept leaking secret stories to the press, the GOP let the dems control the debate. When conservatives challenged milquetoast moderates in the party, the RNC almost always sided with the moderates.
So here we are now. The choice is stark. Does the GOP become the party of moderation, or do they insist on a return to Reaganism, with the unabashed, bold conservative ideas and a willingness to ridicule the party of treason. The leading candidate right now supported a communist, Mario Cuomo, for governor of his state because he had the right ideas. The leading candidate was endorsed by the NY liberal party 3 times, because he represented much of their platform. On the flip side there is a candidate that not only espouses Reaganism, but has lived and voted it. And for bold ideas, he vows to get the border fence built in 6 months, return the power of education to the states, confront China's growing militancy, boost our armed forces - including space based weaponry, and do everything in his power to see that Roe v. Wade becomes a footnote in history.
That my friend, is a powerful, positive agenda. Reaganesque, Thatcheresque, but certainly not Giuliani-ish.
Cheers
I would be more inclined to support Duncan but for 2 things: 1) I don't like his protectionist position, and 2) I don't think he can beat Hillary or Obama.
Ha!
Hunter needs to come to michigan and confront the liberals who are destroying my home.
I think that Hunter is our only hope right now.
"I think that Hunter is our only hope right now."
If you're hoping for protectionism, big government, and helping Comrade Clinton win, perhaps.
The only difference is that Rudy can win.
You must be thrilled about the impending influx of Mexican trucks on our highways!
No offense to Mr. Hunter, but he is one of the least inspiring candidates I've seen in a while. Someone said "market him as the new Ronald Reagan". That is just not going to happen. Being a nice conservative man with solid convictions just is not enough.
I saw him talking to O'Reilly about illegal immigration. First, he assured O'Reilly that the border fence WILL be built. He said it's already been funded. Then at the very end of the interview, he urged O'Reilly to put pressure on Congress to get the fence built.
I'm not sure if anyone other than me noticed the inconsistency.
Obama and Hillary are socialists. None of the RINOs are socialists.
***********
Optimist. :)
AT this point rudy is riding on a name recognition bubble. When the people who support him because of that learn his liberal positions, he's going to have a hell of a lot of trouble winning the primaries.
I don't like Hunter's big spending and after 20 years he is too much of an insider.
I don't think he will twist his buddies arms to do the dry, hard work of tort reform,tax reform,vouchers, entitlement reform runaway spending. He has certainly not led on these issues yet.
He'd prolly be good on the border and WOT.
I don't think another social conservative/fiscal liberal in the mold of W has a chance.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2006/10/duncan_hunters_voting_record.php
JHBowden (President Giuliani in 2008! Executive branch backed abortions, gay marriages, gun control for all!)
I assume you're plugging your own candidacy right? Right?
:-)
Agreed, for a true conservative to win this time around he has to be dynamic, able to get some moderate votes. Otherwise we'll just lose, nobly.
Duncan doesn't display that dynamism. Newt does, but is flawed electorally. Too bad, but that's the way it is.
Read my interview with Duncan Hunter:
http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=17769078&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6
Mike Tremoglie
mtremoglie@theeveningbulletin.com
(Also read The Bulletin's review of my novel A Sense of Duty http://www.thebulletin.us/site/news.cfm?newsid=17890552&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=6 - file this as a Shameless Plug)
Hunter, or preferrably Newt, get my support. McCain and Rudy might get my support for cabinet positions, but certainly nothing to do with domestic law enforcement. If the RNC wants to retain the WH, then they better get behind a conservative.
But Schwarzenegger can.
Hunter comes across very very well. Much better debater and speaker than Rudy or Romney or McCain. His problem is being unknown. And that will change.
A lot of people say Hunter couldn't win. Hunter can win if people vote for him. However, if too many conservatives compromise their values, and instead give their vote away to Guiliani, then of course Hunter stands no chance.
Personally, I think Guiliani would hurt us if we nominated him. His personal life would be the only topic, with the exception of 9/11 (and we all know that how a debate on 9/11 would look). Whereas with Hunter the issues would have to be debated, because as far as I know, he has no skeletons in his closet.
There is nothing to like about Giuliani beyond his leadership on 9/11, and his record of being tough on crime. Other than that, he could be Hillary Clinton without the pantsuit!
Duncan has NOOOOOOOOOOO chance.
Give it up all of Duncanistas.
Cross Dressing and Deuteronomy 22:5
A man's item shall not be on a woman, and a man shall not wear a woman's garment; whoever does such a thing is an abhorrence unto Adonai.
Deuteronomy 22:5
And don't even think about wearing white pumps until Easter. Leviticracks 3: subsection viii.
(And who's Adonai? That queer eye guy?)
Duncan's got my vote. If the right conservative is nominated, there's no way that Hillary and Obama can win.
Nope. We'll be limiting federal power and giving a lot of prerogatives back to the states. We're only one judge away from getting a rid of a lot of nonsense from affirmative action to Roe v Wade. Giuliani has a strong record opposing nonsense from bilingual education to supporting school choice to opposing government funded anti-Christian art.
Support a weak candidate like Tancredo and get Hillary elected, and we'll see at least 2-3 ACLU kooks appointed there. The Dem Congress will flood the courts with more judges that want federally funded anti-Christian nonsense while banning the most noble aspects of Christianity, like displays of the Ten Commandents.
Yet the social cons can't tell their friends from their enemies, and think people like me are just as bad as Barack Hussein Obama Jr.
Gingrich / DeLay ( or DeLay / Gingrich ) in '08
Seriously, Hilary ain't gonna win. She probably won't even get the nomination because she isn't left enough (scary, huh). Whatever candidate we put up is going to be President. Foreign policy belongs to the Republican party and that trumps everything, IMO.
What if Rudy wins? Then what? Rudy makes W look like Buchanan. If we get a Republican Congress, then we have 4 more years like the last 6. If we get a Democrat Congress, then we will be thinkng of W's budgets as the good old days.
HEAR HEAR
Yes, yes, yes and yes. It is still very early, though. Plenty of time for people to get to know him.
"Duncanistas"
LOL, another derogatory group name, to go along side McCainiacs and Rudy-tooters.
I'd rather have Duncan than Rudy.
I'd rather have Rudy than McCain.
Great post. I would just remind folks however that there is another part of a man: the body. It's imperfect, it's frail, it drives us to temptation, and often to ruin; except that without it we can accomplish nothing.
You'll get no argument from me that Rudy doesn't represent the soul of conservatism, but it's not clear to me either that Hunter represents the best body to accomplish our goals. It would be extremely exciting to see Hunter develop what it takes to win and succeed for us (not to say he hasn't, just that no one knows about it yet), but in the end we need to go with our best bet for progress, whoever it is.
That means keeping an open mind, not slashing and burning our closest allies like has been happing recently. Once again, thanks for the post, and here's to a vigorous but civil debate.
I couldn't disagree more.
You mean people like Santorum, Allen, and Talent, right? Allen was supposed to be our savior, and now that he's gone, people are pushing these third-rate candidates who stand no chance.
Why are Republicans losing lately? It isn't about being right on 100% of the issues all of the time. It is being right on the most important issues of the time. If you are right on a small issue like stem-cell research, while letting someone wrong preach poison about how we need to cuddle Islamic supremacists -- ahem -- give peace a chance, you're going to lose.
I want to go back to the old days where we upset safe candidates like Max Cleland by painting them as Hussein and bin Laden enablers. Focusing on your moral purity doesn't always translate into policy.
Gimme Hunter or Tancredo any day, Rudy is far too liberal and he isn't pro 2nd Amendment. If Rudy gets in, I'll go Third party, I'm tired of not voting my conscience. If Hillary or Obama gets in, well, I'll just leave things to God at this point and pray that this is the shock we need. However, that is too far right now in the future, we will have to see where this game takes us.
He only appears weak because you and your ilke continue to ignore Hunter at your own peril.
Do you or do you not support Duncan Hunter's Reaganesque politics? If you do, then why are you not actively getting his name out there so that he IS a strong cadidate? You dont ignore the best candidate for the nomination simply because he doesnt have name power 2 yrs out of the election. Geez.
"And who's Adonai? That queer eye guy?"
Adonai is one of the names of God. Feel better now?
Ouch. lol
ooops--sorry Big Sky Daddy!
Odds are not in his favor...but that hasnt stopped me or many, many others from backing him. Why dont you wait and see what happens. We have time to see if he stretches his legs and can get the ball rolling.
The differences are glaring.
No more Liberal Republicans.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.